[Previous entry: "Wal-Mart turns customers into guinea pigs once again"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Nat Hentoff on Terri Schindler (Schiavo)"]

11/11/2003 Archived Entry: "Banner for Terri Schindler"

WHY THE TERRI SCHINDLER BANNER? I believe in "the right to die" -- as long as that means the individual, not the state or some creepy Hitlerian "bio-ethicist," makes the choice. If I were as damanged as Terri Schindler (Schiavo) is, I would not want to live.

Given that, it feels strange to post a "pro-life for Terri" banner at the top of this blog, as Debra did today. There are two reasons it's up there. First, there's a ton of evidence that Terri's "wish" to die is something concocted by her husband -- a man who has judicially raided the trust fund set up for her care, denied her the therapy he promised to provide, and who appears to want her dead only so he can inherit the rest of the money. Second, the media propaganda about Terri's "persistant vegetative state" is appalling. As horrifically brain-damaged as she is, this is a responsive human being -- not merely a "houseplant" (as her husband's lawyer called her) that responds randomly to stimuli.

Every time I hear or read a mainstream media report on her case, I cringe in revulsion. They never even question the "persistant vegetative" claim (or mention that some doctors have questioned it). The media presents the case as a he said/she said between Terri's parents and her husband, rarely mentioning the husband's uber-sinister actions, and not even acknowledging the obvious conflict of interest in the fact that he stands to profit from Terri's death. Have these reporters truly not looked into this case? Or -- shudder! -- are their stories deliberate propaganda for the position that "useless" human beings should be disposed of?

Posted by Claire @ 02:58 PM CST
Link